Debate - Shermer and Chopra

Agreed. That’s why I think the religious want the “feel good” version that there is more than this. I admit I want that version too, because while qualitatively life is “good” (on this end), quantitatively it isn’t long enough. If I am lucky to live to 100 (no guarantee) and those 100 years are good qualitative years, they are only a spit in the bucket. So the religious can tell themselves, even if my life is short on earth, I will have eternity in the next life. The rest of us don’t get to believe that even though we may want it.

But, if you could have an extra 100 or 1000 years, like the transhumanists are working on, that would probably be enough “living.” Real immortality would be mind-numbing—what new experiences could we have after 100 million or a billion years? The “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” books used to have fun with immortal aliens that were bored and running out of new things to amuse themselves with.

Agreed. That’s why I think the religious want the “feel good” version that there is more than this. I admit I want that version too, because while qualitatively life is “good” (on this end), quantitatively it isn’t long enough. If I am lucky to live to 100 (no guarantee) and those 100 years are good qualitative years, they are only a spit in the bucket. So the religious can tell themselves, even if my life is short on earth, I will have eternity in the next life. The rest of us don’t get to believe that even though we may want it.

But, if you could have an extra 100 or 1000 years, like the transhumanists are working on, that would probably be enough “living.” Real immortality would be mind-numbing—what new experiences could we have after 100 million or a billion years? The “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” books used to have fun with immortal aliens that were bored and running out of new things to amuse themselves with.

Absolutely. Immortality would be horrific. I think the problem is rationally understanding the end is coming and having no control over when, where and how it will happen. Maybe by the time I reach 100 (if I do) I will be ready to take the great exit. Many elderly people I talk to seem to feel this way. I have a long way to go psychologically because I enjoy being alive.

Agreed. That’s why I think the religious want the “feel good” version that there is more than this. I admit I want that version too, because while qualitatively life is “good” (on this end), quantitatively it isn’t long enough. If I am lucky to live to 100 (no guarantee) and those 100 years are good qualitative years, they are only a spit in the bucket. So the religious can tell themselves, even if my life is short on earth, I will have eternity in the next life. The rest of us don’t get to believe that even though we may want it.

But, if you could have an extra 100 or 1000 years, like the transhumanists are working on, that would probably be enough “living.” Real immortality would be mind-numbing—what new experiences could we have after 100 million or a billion years? The “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” books used to have fun with immortal aliens that were bored and running out of new things to amuse themselves with.

Absolutely. Immortality would be horrific. I think the problem is rationally understanding the end is coming and having no control over when, where and how it will happen. Maybe by the time I reach 100 (if I do) I will be ready to take the great exit. Many elderly people I talk to seem to feel this way. I have a long way to go psychologically because I enjoy being alive.

Your assuming that your mind would never change, which, if you have learned anything in life, it is that your mind changes with time.

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

But, if you could have an extra 100 or 1000 years, like the transhumanists are working on, that would probably be enough “living.” Real immortality would be mind-numbing—what new experiences could we have after 100 million or a billion years?

Read Time Enough For Love by Richard Heinlein. All about the lives of Lazurus Long. Excellent, classic read.

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

But, if you could have an extra 100 or 1000 years, like the transhumanists are working on, that would probably be enough “living.” Real immortality would be mind-numbing—what new experiences could we have after 100 million or a billion years?

Read Time Enough For Love by Richard Heinlein. All about the lives of Lazurus Long. Excellent, classic read.

Thanks for the tip! I heard of it, but I never got around to reading it. Now that my kids are all doing stuff on their own, I have more time to do some reading.

I guess Gad is assuming that you’ll change your mind about wanting to live also!

Gad has a way of accusing others of errant thinking while lacking evidence, which results in his own troublesome and incorrect thinking and circular reasoning. He is a master at it. I’ve been around the block a few times (with him) and have come to learn he is singing a sad old song.

It’s a similar strategy used by religious people who attack on weak merits and dismiss. He’s simply an old dog constantly trying to reinvent an old trick, but keeps gnawing on the same bare bone. He’s a charlatan with his revivalist tent propped up nearby for quick cover—- but actually an endearing sort guy in a way.

And on occasion, paradoxically, he hits the nail on the head with acute precision.

I guess Gad is assuming that you’ll change your mind about wanting to live also!

Gad has a way of accusing others of errant thinking while lacking evidence, which results in his own troublesome and incorrect thinking and circular reasoning. He is a master at it. I’ve been around the block a few times (with him) and have come to learn he is singing a sad old song.

It’s a similar strategy used by religious people who attack on weak merits and dismiss. He’s simply an old dog constantly trying to reinvent an old trick, but keeps gnawing on the same bare bone. He’s a charlatan with his revivalist tent propped up nearby for quick cover—- but actually an endearing sort guy in a way.

And on occasion, paradoxically, he hits the nail on the head with acute precision.

Those, I aptly note, are the good days.

OH, LJ, how you do make me laugh with your silly song and dances! You say ” Immortality would be horrific.” I say you can’t know that, you have no referance, what you do know is that what you thinks changes with time.

And what is your response, see above.

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

I guess Gad is assuming that you’ll change your mind about wanting to live also!

Gad has a way of accusing others of errant thinking while lacking evidence, which results in his own troublesome and incorrect thinking and circular reasoning. He is a master at it. I’ve been around the block a few times (with him) and have come to learn he is singing a sad old song.

It’s a similar strategy used by religious people who attack on weak merits and dismiss. He’s simply an old dog constantly trying to reinvent an old trick, but keeps gnawing on the same bare bone. He’s a charlatan with his revivalist tent propped up nearby for quick cover—- but actually an endearing sort guy in a way.

And on occasion, paradoxically, he hits the nail on the head with acute precision.

Those, I aptly note, are the good days.

OH, LJ, how you do make me laugh with your silly song and dances! You say ” Immortality would be horrific.” I say you can’t know that, you have no referance, what you do know is that what you thinks changes with time.

And what is your response, see above.

Hi Gad:

Nice to “see” you hanging out these days.

You are correct, I am being a little silly with all my charlatan talk and you gnawing bare bones.

You work so well into my metaphors, sometimes I can’t resist. It’s all in fun as you know.

You are also correct that I cannot know for certain that “immortality would be horrific.” It is, however, what I would imagine since 120 years is the tops on the physical limitations of human ability, so that is all I have to make a reasonable judgment on.

If I’m bound to a wheel chair and 3/4 of my brain’s functioning capacity is lost, I do think immortality would lose its luster and turn to “horrific” very quickly, because we can assume (logically here) that atrophy will begin to set in as I age. By the time I reach 100 my current “beautiful” and “bodacious” body will wane. (I’m trying not to be vain here, just trying to make a point.)

And you are also correct that my thinking does and will change with time, but my point was—-and here is where workinporgress “gets it” and you don’t—-I was not assuming that my perspective won’t change, only surmising that it may not and currently it is difficult to imagine it will, given my life as it stands today and not wanting it to end.

Workinprogress also was quick to note your own assumptions about my remarks which you have done nothing to clarify or explain. What is good for the goose is good for the gander as he so astutely noticed. (That, btw, now puts me back on the top position in this discussion.)

So what’s the deal? This is logical and reasonable thinking streamlining out of LJ. You just like to mess with me, don’tcha?